On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Joe Szalai wrote:
> Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of> attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia> often.
Gee, I could have sworn those were Soviet tanks on the streets of Prague
in 1968, but I guess they came from behind the Hale-Bopp comet after all.
Thanks, Joe, for settling this once and for all.
On the other hand, it would be nice to have an actual argument debating
the points Tom Friedman made, as opposed to getting hung up on the
stupid little phrase about those "little-known countries". Take that
out of the article and the rest of Friedman's points are right on the
money, as far as U.S. national interest is concerned. And I hope
the counterarguments are a bit more solid than the ones hinted at by
Dr Liptak. Talking about the marvelous achievements of Copernicus
and the story of the noontime church bells is unlikely to induce the
U.S. Congress to cough up some $40 billion or so that the NATO
expansion is projected to cost.
-----
Gabor Fencsik

Kristof wrote:
> George Antony wrote:>> Why, what a sacrifice, riding the tram with Hungarians and eating with>> them! I suggest your concept of hardship is somewhat cushy and/or or your>> wording is pretty patronizing. Though, I suppose you were still more>> exposed to a harshly different world than those fellow churchmen of yours>> whom I regularly have to pry away from my front gate in Australia.> Spoken like someone who has never gone out into the world as a 19-year-old> and tried to make people listen to something dear to you -- and knowing> most won't -- and still learning to be courageous in the face of it. It's> a hardship to go from Canberra to Sydney under those conditions, let alone> from Virginia to Budapest.
Hardship is hardly the word for it. Challenge, perhaps, but still self-
sought and it would still apply if you went next door. It would be hardship
if you had gone to Mali.
> Ah, well. I don't know what I was expecting. Just a question, though --> is there not a phrase in Hungarian "ahany nyelv, annyi ember"? I was> willing to make an effort to understand and come to love a totally foreign> people, and to pay for the privilege.
This is called tourism. Millions of young people do it all the time, mostly
enjoy it and do not expect to be revered for it. In your case it was mixed
with business which does not make it any more heroic.
If you feel that going such a standard tourist destination as Hungary was
an utter sacrifice, something that you only did to carry out your business,
this presents you in a ligth of sorry insularity.
> It's fascinating to me the number> of people who have nothing but evil to speak of a practice that has, at> the worst, no negative effects, and at the best, extremely positive ones.
That is not me. I happen to think that if you managed to provide solace
to one desperate soul you have already done some good. Given the declining
living standards and general uncertainty in Hungary, there are many desperate
people out there. Finding solace in Christian sects is still better than
hitting the bottle.
Overall, though, I think that the real answer is economic development that
allows decent social life, rather than radical Christianity. Hence, I
appreciate the volunteer work of the Peace Corps types more than I do yours.
> I was under the impression, after two years in Budapest, that Hungarians> welcomed the chance to let the world know what a noble and great people> they are. How else is the world going to know? Advertising? And when> Fiat and Ford and Honda and Nike have carved up the country into their own> private fiefdoms, wouldn't it be nice if there were some Americans who> cared to defend the Hungarianism of Hungary against the West?
Hungarians need defence against the West so that they can retain their
cultural identity. In this case, the West includes you and Western sects.
Nobody but the Hungarians themselves can do that.
Otherwise, Hungary needs to integrate with the West. She belongs with the
West but for a quirk of history that prevented that.
And the 'private fiefdoms of Fiat, Ford, Honda and Nike' sound really silly.
> When you have spent two years in Virginia trying to understand me, as I> did two years in Budapest to understand Hungarians, your comments will> have some bearing on the discussion.
It is a little presumtuous of you to suggest that anyone should spend two
years trying to understand you in situ. Having spent plenty of time to
understand all sorts of peoples around the world as a tourist, a different
culture in Australia as an immigrant, and as different peoples as Papua New
Guineans professionally, I am perfectly well placed to pass comments in this
discussion. And no, I claim no hero status for any of that.
George Antony

Joe Szalai wrote:
> At 12:57 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:> >E.Durant wrote:> >>tremendous expence, nuclear weapons and troups> >>to be stationed in Hungary? I don't think so.> >>Who is the enemy exactly?> >Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States or> >whatever is her actual name.> Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of> attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia> often.
Obviously, Joe's knowledge of European history is quite deficient, although
one can possible compile 40 individual years this century in which Russia
or the Soviet Union attacked no European nation.
Just to stick to this century, I vaguely recall Russian imperial actions in
the Caucasus that historians can perhaps confirm. Even before the civil war
was over, the Soviet Union attacked Poland in 1920. Before WWII, the Soviet
Union attacked Finland and used the threat of invasion to absorb the Baltic
States.
The invasions of Hungary in 1956 and of Czechoslovakia in 1968 were clear
attacks on European nations. The 1981 blackmail of Poland with the threat of
a similar attack is another case in point, as was the armed standoff with
Yugoslavia in the 1950s and as are documented cases of military pressure on the
now independent European states in the Baltic and the Ukraine, and Russian
military assistance to separatists in Moldova and Georgia. None of these
would have happened if these countries had been NATO members, and please
do not now try to obfuscate by quoting the names of Eastern European
politicians who claimed ex post facto that they invited in the Red Army.
It is clear from statements of Russian politicians (bar those of the
liberal parties) that they consider Russia as the successor of the Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe as a Russian sphere of influence of some sort.
While today's Russia is a much reduced power, it is even more volatile and
unpredictable than the Soviet Union was. Hungary has some more protection
through an independent Ukraine between herself and Russia, but the threat
is there.
Besides Russia, I think that a much closer security risk is a desperado
Serbia, in itself or the fallout of another war between Croatia and rump
Yugoslavia.
George Antony

----------
From: Joe Szalai
Sent: Monday, April 28, 1997 6:47 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list HUNGARY
Subject: Re: NYTimes on NATO
At 12:57 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>E.Durant wrote:>>>tremendous expence, nuclear weapons and troups>>to be stationed in Hungary? I don't think so.>>Who is the enemy exactly?>Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States or>whatever is her actual name.
Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of
attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia
often.
Joe Szalai
I seem to recall reading something about a brief visit to Hungary from our
friends in 1849...

Gabor Fencsik is asking for a 200 word explanation of the moral difference
between Mormon-bashing and other forms of religious bigotry.
This is not a response to that, just a bit of venting. I understand (and,
please, Kristof correct me if I am wrong) that Mormons collect lists of dead
people of all religions and they "convert" them. I find this practice (if
true) un-appealing.
Gabor D. Farkas

At 3:58 PM +0100 4/28/97, Eva Durant wrote:
>If I were Nato I would be deeply worried, Hungary>seems to choose the loosers for the past few centuries.>Anyway, is it so cut and dried, that it is so crucial>to have for>tremendous expence, nuclear weapons and troups>to be stationed in Hungary? I don't think so.>Who is the enemy exactly?>Eva>>>>
Hungary could not protect herself for centuries. Russia is unstable and
some of Hungary's neighbours could become unfriendly. I prefer and trust
NATO much more than our old masters, the Nazis and the Soviets. The Hungary
of today cannot defend herself from any nasty neighbour.
Peter

At 06:47 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of>attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia>often.
It is more like fifty or sixty years. Considering that it includes my whole
life, for me it seems to be an eternity.
Gabor D. Farkas

Gabor Fencsik wrote:
> I am a bit perplexed by the vehemence of the Mormon-bashing> contingent. Perhaps George or Sam or Joe can explain (in 200 words> or less) why is it that anti-Mormon bigotry is any more acceptable> than bigotry directed at any other religion.
A nice unloaded question, perhaps the next one will be when I stopped
beating my wife.
> Had Kristof offered religious propaganda on the list, then> I could understand the animus against him.
As I obviously was not clear enough for Gabor, to rephrase my objection
to Kristof's stand (rather than his person): it is ridiculous to claim
that rubbing shoulders with the locals at such a well-worn European tourist
destination as Hungary of the late 1980s constitutes some sort of hardship.
This is quite apart from the vacuousness of calling someone going around
in established Christian countries recruiting for another denomination of
Christianity a missionary, as if such activity lead to a net gain for
the cause of Jesus Christ. But the latter sentiment probably reflects
an uncommonly ecumenical world view.
This said, I have admiration for people who go to really rough places to
spread the word and do some practical things for the locals too. The
role of Lutherans in New Guinea would be my example: they converted, they
set up schools to teach literacy and numeracy, they helped to establish
new agricultural practices, and they stayed put after WWI when Germans
were treated pretty badly in their former colonies by the winners.
Compared to these guys anyone boasting about being a missionary in Hungary
in the late 1980s is a bloody wanker.
George Antony

J.Szalai wrote:
>>Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States or>>whatever is her actual name.>>Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of>attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia>often.
This just shows how little you know about History, my buddy.
Well, let me recall some ambitious plan or achievement of Russia in
the last 2-3 hundred years. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth
century Russia had some bloody fight for the Baltics and Finnland with
Sweden. Of course one can ask what the Swedes were doing there, but these
territories definitely were not Russian. Also I would mention the Russian
role in the destruction of the independent Poland in the late eighteenth
century or the centuries old Russian dream of controlling the Bosporus and
Dardanelles.
But you were right at one point, the Europians were not innocent throughout
the History either.
J.Zs

S.Stowe wrote:
>Since I live in North Carolina, then I understand you -- this would be an>argument taken directly from the Janos Zsargo school of logic. It may>comfort you to know that you have rather a catholic and universal>annoyance factor thanks to your incessant desire to talk about yourself.>Culture be damned -- you'd be a boring nuisance in any language.
Well, thank you for dragging me into the conversation. As far as I
concerned I am more annoyed by you and your fellow (J.Szalai) than
by Kristof. I know next to nothing about the Mormon Church, and I am
not really intended to learn much about it (sorry Kristof). However
the hard-core liberal BS what Joe advertise on this list all the time
can be as ridicoulous as any of its hard-core religious counterpart
(which is not the case with Kristof, because he did not try to preach
on the list, yet).
You know Sam, Kristof at least went to Hungary, lived there for a while,
got to know the Hungarians personally and not just read books for a decade
or so and listened to some tapes of 'Muzsikas'. And the
most important, he did not try to teach and explain our History to us
and after an extensive (but who knows how intensive) readings he did
not write about Jelasic as the leader of 'southern Serbs'.
>I don't think it's too presumptious to say that most people are well>within their rights to ignore a 19 year-old standing on their doorstep>raving about something dear to his heart when he doesn't know jack-shit>about the real world. You apparently didn't learn courage as much as you>learned to be smug.
Sam, you are talking about the reality?! You, who would send the mass-
-murderers to UN mission or want NAFTA for East-Europe?
J.Zs

E.Balogh wrote:
> I am also sure that you would do a good deed if you decided to>subscribe because there seems to be a frantic attempt at getting more>subscriptions by offering advantageous rates plus some older issues as>bonus. I just wish that more people would read these magazines. Then perhaps>we wouldn't have so many misinformed people about our past. By the way, I>certainly will subscribe and urge everybody who can read Hungarian to follow>my *sterling* (;)) example. You can do that by either writing to Rubicon,>1135 Budapest, Szent Laszlo ut 46, fszt. 13 or by faxing or telephoning them>at 36+1+403-5477.
Thank you for the information. I will try to subscribe.
J.Zs

On Tue, 29 Apr 1997, George Antony wrote:
> This said, I have admiration for people who go to really rough places to> spread the word and do some practical things for the locals too. The> role of Lutherans in New Guinea would be my example: they converted, they> set up schools to teach literacy and numeracy, they helped to establish> new agricultural practices, and they stayed put after WWI when Germans> were treated pretty badly in their former colonies by the winners.>> Compared to these guys anyone boasting about being a missionary in Hungary> in the late 1980s is a bloody wanker.
Interesting. In colloquial American English the word 'wanker' is used,
by adolescents mostly, to denigrate a person who masturbates in excess
of the norm. A 'bloody wanker', I suppose, would refer to a person who
masturbates considerably in excess of the norm. Does the word have a
different meaning to the Aussies down under? If so, what? Just curious...
-----
Gabor Fencsik

>>> > >Who is the enemy exactly?> >> > Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States> > or whatever is her actual name.> >> > J.Zs> >>> Any evidence? I thought there we have an internationally accepted> democracy, building wonderful capitalism, even if in the somewhat> erratic, latin-american way...>

>>> > Charlie>> (All reasonable sounding reasons to be in NATO chopped)>> My suspicious mind detects good business in selling arms to prop up> economies that are idiotically depend on arm-industry and to destroy> any chance of social dividends elsewhere.> and if necessary, to create an enemy - as before both "worlds"> managed to do - to be able to turn any opposition into "treason".> a mad, mad world.>

I have a friend who is returning home to Hungary in the next few weeks who
would like to find somewhere in the budapest area who can teach Tai Chi
and/or shiatsu.
If you know of anywhere or know anyone who might know please contact me
and I'll pass the info on.
TIA,
Stuart.
Stuart
8-)
Stuart
8-)

I wasn't aware that we had nasty neighbours,
must be my sunny disposition.
We are in cooperative group (Visegrad) I think,
with most of them, Rumania has a different government
after the last elections.
Our neighbours are people like us, if you think they
want war, you have a severe case of paranoia.
In the past, our allies always proved to be
the real danger, not the perceived enemies.
Eva D
> >> >> >>> Hungary could not protect herself for centuries. Russia is unstable and> some of Hungary's neighbours could become unfriendly. I prefer and trust> NATO much more than our old masters, the Nazis and the Soviets. The Hungary> of today cannot defend herself from any nasty neighbour.>> Peter

>Well, I am not quite sure about this "excuse...". It appears>to be more with this curious cultural characteristic of anglo-saxons.>I wonder what the effect will be, when the Hispanos become the>majority in the US.>MKH
Actually, we don't have to wait to find out. Look at the propositions in
California to make English the official language there. It's not the
language police that Eva mentioned, but enforcement of such a statute will
necessitate one, it looks like.
Kristof

At the risk of ruining everyone's fun by refusing to be insulted, I return
to the original topic, which was the growth of protestant churches in
Hungary. I do know a little about that subject, and would be willing to
share the information I have with the original messager, if he has not
abandoned all hope of finding what he was looking for. If that
information will be helpful, please e-mail me. If not, forgive the
intrusion, and you may all continue assaulting each other.
Kristof

Thank you for your story, I read it with great interest. I tried to
reply yesterday, but for some reason or other, the system refused my
mail.
I am sorry for your initial bad experiences with Canada. Things changed
a tremendous amount since. You may have heard that Toronto was chosen
the most pleasant metropolis in the world. I wish I had the money to
participate in all the cultural events and taste all the culinary exotica
in the various ethnic restaurants. The weather - well, we don't like it
either, but most of us can afford to escape a few weeks of winter and go
for a southern vacation and that makes people quite content. We arrived
in Montreal in 1963 and after the first two winters learned cross-country
skiing which was a terrific family program from November (starting to
clear the trails) to the end of March. We tried to escape the French
problem by moving to Toronto 20 years ago. Here, in Ontario, even the
blackflies are gone by June! Try to forget your bitterness, Eva, and
schedule a Canadian holiday!
Agnes

At 11:47 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo in "Re: NYTimes on NATO" wrote:
<snip>
>This just shows how little you know about History, my buddy.>Well, let me recall some ambitious plan or achievement of Russia in>the last 2-3 hundred years. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth>century Russia had some bloody fight for the Baltics and Finnland with>Sweden. Of course one can ask what the Swedes were doing there, but these>territories definitely were not Russian. Also I would mention the Russian>role in the destruction of the independent Poland in the late eighteenth>century or the centuries old Russian dream of controlling the Bosporus and>Dardanelles.>But you were right at one point, the Europians were not innocent>throughout the History either.
In the major conflicts, Europeans were the aggressors. Napoleon and Hitler
come to mind. It might be well to remember that it was Hitler who attacked
the Soviet Union. Stalin was simply defending his nation. Were it not for
Hitler's actions, Russian style "existing socialism" may never have come to
Eastern Europe.
Russia's ambitions were clear for many hundreds of years. They wanted an
ice-free, year round, access to world trade routes. And yes, small
neighbouring states were pressured from time to time, but that seems to be
a universal phenomenon. And yes, in this century, they wanted to "export"
socialist revolution. However, their attempts at exporting revolution was
not greatly different from the Western nations exporting "free markets" and
capitalism.
Joe Szalai

At 09:55 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Gabor Farkas wrote:
>At 06:47 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:>>>Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of>>attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked>>Russia often.>>It is more like fifty or sixty years. Considering that it includes my>whole life, for me it seems to be an eternity.
Not everything is what it seems to be.
Joe Szalai

At 11:46 AM 4/29/97 +1000, George Antony "Re: NYTimes on NATO" wrote:
<snip>
>The invasions of Hungary in 1956 and of Czechoslovakia in 1968 were clear>attacks on European nations.
They were attacks by the Warsaw Pact nations. They were Russian led and
inspired, for sure. However, if all member nations of NATO attacked
another nation, would it be fair to say that the Americans did it? Would
NATO members do anything without Washington's blessing? I don't think so.
Joe Szalai
An alliance is like a chain. It is not made stronger by adding weak links
to it. A great power like the United States gains no advantage and it loses
prestige by offering, indeed peddling, its alliances to all and sundry. An
alliance should be hard diplomatic currency, valuable and hard to get, and
not inflationary paper from the mimeograph machine in the State Department.
-- Walter Lippmann

At 06:07 PM 4/28/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, Joe Szalai wrote:>>> Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of>> attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked>>Russia often.>>Gee, I could have sworn those were Soviet tanks on the streets of Prague>in 1968, but I guess they came from behind the Hale-Bopp comet after all.>Thanks, Joe, for settling this once and for all.
No problem, Gabor. It's too bad you don't think that the 40 year span I
mentioned includes 1968. And 1956, for that matter.
Joe Szalai

At 05:44 PM 4/28/97 GMT, Kristof wrote:
>At the risk of ruining everyone's fun by refusing to be insulted, I return>to the original topic, which was the growth of protestant churches in>Hungary. I do know a little about that subject, and would be willing to>share the information I have with the original messager, if he has not>abandoned all hope of finding what he was looking for. If that>information will be helpful, please e-mail me. If not, forgive the>intrusion, and you may all continue assaulting each other.
Debating and freely exchanging ideas and opinions is not "assaulting each
other". However, it *is* different from the rote learning of the Book of
Mormon that you're familiar, and comfortable, with.
Joe Szalai

****************** CALL FOR ACTION ****************
Priority: normal
Background:
Hungary's position in the Danube lawsuit at the International Court
of Justice in The Hague is very promising. However, even if the court
rules in favour for the environment it is possible that the Slovak
government does not accept the sentence.
It is important that influential politicians of USA support our
position, since in this case Slovakia probably does not dare to reject
the decision of the court.
What to do:
Please help to persuade Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to
make a statement in favor of the Danube. Feel free to use the attached
form letters (letter #1 for Americans, letter #2 for non-Americans).
IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ALBRIGHT FINDS THOUSANDS OF LETTERS IN HER
MAILBOX.
PLEASE ACT!! Please SEND EVEN SNAIL MAILS. These are more effective.
FURTHERMORE SEND COPIES OF YOUR LETTER TO:
Executive Assistant, Maura Harty
Special Assistant, Carlene Ackerman
Senior Advisor, Robert O. Boorstin (Room 7246)
Assistant Secretary for Oceans, & International Environmental and
Scientific Affairs Bureau, Eileen B. Claussen (Room 7831)
address:
United States Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
e-mail address of Madeleine Albright:
*************************************************************
<date>
The Honorable Madeleine Albright
United States Secretary of State
United States Department of State
Washington, DC 20520
( E-Mail: )
RE: First Environmental Lawsuit (Danube) in The Hague
Dear Madame Secretary,
Please accept my congratulations on your well-deserved appointment. I
do hope that your leadership will contribute to progress and stability
in Central Europe.
Madame Secretary, you now have a great opportunity to set a new tone
for American policy in connection with international environmental
standards in general and with the Danube lawsuit in particular, which
is in progress at the International Court of Justice in the Hague.
This new tone would be consistent with the US policy of expanding
Western structures to Eastern and Central Europe. It would also engage
the US more actively in helping resolve emerging inter-country
conflicts in the Region (i) by urging your West European partners to
assist more pro-actively, and (ii) by calling on both parties (Hungary
and Slovakia) to accept the Compromise Plan prepared by the
environmental NGOs and thereby cooperate in the quest for a solution
that can set an example for the future.
Your help in resolving the Danube problem would also be consistent
with the present US policy based on a global approach to environmental
issues and based on seeking to mobilize all relevant political
(multilateral, international, non-governmental, and civic society)
forces to assist in avoiding environmental catastrophes caused by
bilateral agreements that have been drawn up by non-representative
governments under a regional policy framework which was imposed by
Moscow.
This, the first international environmental lawsuit in human
history, also involves the United States, because it was the Paris
Peace Treaty which set the border between Czechoslovakia and Hungary,
and it was that Treaty which named the Great Powers as the guarantors
of the integrity of the two nations' territories. The Treaty also
stated that the two nations DO NOT have the right to change their
border, unless the Great Powers first approve of the change. Yet in
1977, under Soviet direction, the two nations signed a contract to
move the Danube, previously their border river, into an artificial
canal on Slovak territory. By so doing, they did not ask nor did they
receive, the approval of the Great Powers. Therefore, the Moscow
initiated 1977 Contract was and is INHERENTLY INVALID, and the Danube
must be returned into its riverbed.
Madame Secretary. There is little question, that in the fall, the
International Court of Justice will order Slovakia to return the
Danube into its natural riverbed and will also order the restoration
of the Szigetkoz wetlands. But, as you know, the ICJ has no powers to
enforce its rulings. Therefore, it will be up to the international
community to force Slovakia to obey the ruling. Since this is the
first international environmental lawsuit before the ICJ, the outcome
will establish an important precedent. It must be understood that
there is a price to be paid for being admitted into the European
Community or into NATO. That price must include respect for
international law. A statement by you, would guarantee that the
parties understand this. Please make that statement.
Respectfully yours,
<Your name, address, title>

At 06:47 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of>attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia>often.
Did you think that through? ESB

Joe, please don't push this point because you don't know enough
history to sustain the argument. The fact is that Muscovy, ever since they
threw off the Mongol yoke has been expanding, first by "gathering of
Russia," and later by moving northward and southward and eventually eastward
to form a huge empire. And once this was achieved, they kept going and going
or meddling in the affairs of the Balkans. Yes, there was a temporary
setback as a result of the Russian revolution and civil war, but both before
and after World War II the expansion continued.
>In the major conflicts, Europeans were the aggressors. Napoleon and Hitler>come to mind. It might be well to remember that it was Hitler who attacked>the Soviet Union.
Yes, but think of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and the division of
Poland and eventually Bessarabia.
>Stalin was simply defending his nation. Were it not for>Hitler's actions, Russian style "existing socialism" may never have come to>Eastern Europe.
Oh, really? The innocent lamb. Russia had its territorial demands
already in World War I, if there had been no revolution and no civil war and
the Allies (including Russia) won against the Central Powers, Russia would
have submitted its bill. If you are at all interested, a whole book was
written on Russia's war aims in World War I.
ESB

At 02:58 PM 4/28/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>I am a bit perplexed by the vehemence of the Mormon-bashing>contingent. Perhaps George or Sam or Joe can explain (in 200 words>or less) why is it that anti-Mormon bigotry is any more acceptable>than bigotry directed at any other religion.
I have been tempted to write something about this but then inertia
set in. I am glad, Gabor, that you said something. I am especially surprised
about our "tolerant" Joe who seems to have a completely blind spot when it
comes to religion.
I have had several Mormon students. They were nice young men, who
interrupted their studies to do some "missionary" work. After their stint
abroad for one or two years, they returned and finished their studies. I had
high opinion of them. They were nice.
I visited Salt Lake City and I found the scene rather odd but I am
open-minded enough to admit that there are some people who are attracted to
the teachings of Joseph Smith.
Moreover, if their missionary work is successful: well, who am I to
criticize either them or their followers. ESB

At 09:01 AM 4/29/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:
>At 11:46 AM 4/29/97 +1000, George Antony "Re: NYTimes on NATO" wrote:>><snip>>>The invasions of Hungary in 1956 and of Czechoslovakia in 1968 were clear>>attacks on European nations.>>They were attacks by the Warsaw Pact nations.
You are on shaky grounds again. In 1956 there was no attempt at
involving the other Eastern European nations. Russia did the dirty job alone.
>However, if all member nations of NATO attacked>another nation, would it be fair to say that the Americans did it? Would>NATO members do anything without Washington's blessing? I don't think so.
But the NATO countries didn't attack anyone, did they? ESB

At 06:07 PM 4/28/97 -0700, Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>Gee, I could have sworn those were Soviet tanks on the streets of Prague>in 1968, but I guess they came from behind the Hale-Bopp comet after all.>Thanks, Joe, for settling this once and for all.
And let's add another one, a bit closer to home: 1956. Or a bit of
threat in Poland in the late 1970s.
>>On the other hand, it would be nice to have an actual argument debating>the points Tom Friedman made, as opposed to getting hung up on the>stupid little phrase about those "little-known countries".
Yes, indeed. What a wonderful comparison could be made between Mr.
Friedman and Mr. Chamberlai and "those little known countries" and "peace
for our time." ESB

At 10:01 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Gabor Farkas wrote:
>This is not a response to that, just a bit of venting. I understand (and,>please, Kristof correct me if I am wrong) that Mormons collect lists of dead>people of all religions and they "convert" them. I find this practice (if>true) un-appealing.
Yes, apparently they do. On the other hand, just think about it, as
the result their genealogical research is quite impressive. Including Jewish
genealogies. ESB

J.Szalai wrote:
>In the major conflicts, Europeans were the aggressors.>Napoleon and Hitler come to mind.
As far as Napoleon is concerned, you know probably very well, there were
hostilities between Russia and the French Republic (later French empire)
well before Napoleon's campaign in Russia. You probably know why the
battle at Austerlitz was/is called 'the battle of three emperor'. And
is a Czech city.
>It might be well to remember that it was Hitler who attacked>the Soviet Union. Stalin was simply defending his nation. Were it not for>Hitler's actions, Russian style "existing socialism" may never have come to>Eastern Europe.
True, Hitler was the agressor which only shows that he was the most dangereous
and 'gatlastalan' at that time. I do think however that the conflict between
Russia and Germany was inevitable, so that 'existing socialism' would have come
anyway. Furthermore, I am not sure about the peaceful intention of Stalin,
considering the Molotov-Ribentrop Pact (where Molotov called Poland as '
Versailles fattyugyermeke" as far as I know), the Finn-Russian war, etc.
>Russia's ambitions were clear for many hundreds of years. They wanted an>ice-free, year round, access to world trade routes.
True, the problems arise when this 'ice-free, year round access' is on the
territory of other countries. Then you call such intentions as agressive
expansionist dreams.
>And yes, small neighbouring states were pressured from time to time, but>that seems to be a universal phenomenon. And yes, in this century, they>wanted to "export" socialist revolution.
Here lies the problem, Joe, that is excatly what I do not want to happen
in the future. I do not want Hungary and as a matter of facts the whole
region undergo 'some pressure' from Russia time to time. And mind if I
don't care whether it is a universal practice in politics or not?
>However, their attempts at exporting revolution was not greatly different>from the Western nations exporting "free markets" and capitalism.
Again, I do not care much who export what. My point is, compare Norway,
Spain, Portugal to Hungary before WWII and now. Which country(ies) were
better off?
J.Zs

E.Durant wrote:
>I wasn't aware that we had nasty neighbours,>must be my sunny disposition.
Then I suggest you to do some literature survey
with keywords like Yugoslavia, Croatia, Bosnia,
Kelet-Szlavonia, Vukovar, Eszek, etc. I think
you will find some quite recent and very horrifying
stuff.
J.Zs

MDtoCEO wrote:
>>> Spoken like someone who has never gone out into the world as a 19-year-old> and tried to make people listen to something dear to you -- and knowing> most won't -- and still learning to be courageous in the face of it. It's> a hardship to go from Canberra to Sydney under those conditions, let alone> from Virginia to Budapest.>> Ah, well. I don't know what I was expecting. Just a question, though --> is there not a phrase in Hungarian "ahany nyelv, annyi ember"? I was> willing to make an effort to understand and come to love a totally foreign> people, and to pay for the privilege. It's fascinating to me the number> of people who have nothing but evil to speak of a practice that has, at> the worst, no negative effects, and at the best, extremely positive ones.
Well, maybe you will just have to reconsider your opinion about the
negative effects.
> I was under the impression, after two years in Budapest, that Hungarians> welcomed the chance to let the world know what a noble and great people> they are. How else is the world going to know? Advertising? And when> Fiat and Ford and Honda and Nike have carved up the country into their own> private fiefdoms, wouldn't it be nice if there were some Americans who> cared to defend the Hungarianism of Hungary against the West?
Please, spare us this BS. Hungarians have defied 40 years of Soviet
supression, they are apt enough to decided what is good for them and
what not and they will survive whatever comes from the other direction.
These are hard times for all east european states and the last thing
they need are people trying to save them.
> Or am I not speaking to Hungarians here?>> When you have spent two years in Virginia trying to understand me, as I> did two years in Budapest to understand Hungarians, your comments will> have some bearing on the discussion.
Two years and you`re an expert?
>> Kristof>> I do not expect Joe to be reasonable; he has nothing but sarcasm and hate> in his posts. But surely he is not representative of you, George. Or is> he?
Get a life
Szabolcs

Joe Szalai wrote:
>> At 11:47 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo in "Re: NYTimes on NATO" wrote:>> <snip>> >This just shows how little you know about History, my buddy.> >Well, let me recall some ambitious plan or achievement of Russia in> >the last 2-3 hundred years. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth> >century Russia had some bloody fight for the Baltics and Finnland with> >Sweden. Of course one can ask what the Swedes were doing there, but these> >territories definitely were not Russian. Also I would mention the Russian> >role in the destruction of the independent Poland in the late eighteenth> >century or the centuries old Russian dream of controlling the Bosporus and> >Dardanelles.> >But you were right at one point, the Europians were not innocent> >throughout the History either.>> In the major conflicts, Europeans were the aggressors. Napoleon and Hitler> come to mind.
Now you are selectively redifining aggressions to major and minor
ones!
It might be well to remember that it was Hitler who attacked
> the Soviet Union. Stalin was simply defending his nation.
Poor Uncle Joe(s:)! And he was just lured to Poland. To the Baltics.
To Finland. To Bessarabia. I have no more European borders to offer.
Maybe we should call him Djugasvilli Saint Joe?
MKH

Eva Balogh wrote:
> At 09:01 AM 4/29/97 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:> >At 11:46 AM 4/29/97 +1000, George Antony "Re: NYTimes on NATO" wrote:> >>The invasions of Hungary in 1956 and of Czechoslovakia in 1968 were clear> >>attacks on European nations.> >They were attacks by the Warsaw Pact nations.> You are on shaky grounds again. In 1956 there was no attempt at> involving the other Eastern European nations. Russia did the dirty job alone.> >However, if all member nations of NATO attacked> >another nation, would it be fair to say that the Americans did it? Would> >NATO members do anything without Washington's blessing? I don't think so.>> But the NATO countries didn't attack anyone, did they? ESB
Just to elaborate, the power relationships between the major and minor powers
were very different in the Warsaw Pact and NATO. NATO, collectively, would
not have done anything without US approval, but the US could not force other
members to act against their will and national interests. In the Warsaw
Pact, however, whatever the SU said was obeyed, after all the national armies
took their orders from Moscow just as the local Communists did.
Hence, there was no NATO parallel of the Soviet interventions in other
member countries' internal affairs. There was a case when, according to the
rumours, some US players were pushing for one: when, after the fall of the
dictatorship, a radical left-wing government bluffed its way into power under
Major Carvalho. Still, the refusal of other NATO members to intervene sank
the project, and Carvalho was booted out of office by the Portuguese at the
elections.
George Antony

At 6:47 PM -0400 4/28/97, Joe Szalai wrote:
>At 12:57 PM 4/28/97 -0400, Janos Zsargo wrote:>>>E.Durant wrote:>>>>>tremendous expence, nuclear weapons and troups>>>to be stationed in Hungary? I don't think so.>>>Who is the enemy exactly?>>>Well, Russia or The Soviet Union or Commonwealth of Independent States or>>whatever is her actual name.>>Except for 40 years of this century, Russia doesn't have a history of>attacking Europe. On the other hand, European nations have attacked Russia>often.>>Joe Szalai
Hungary was attacked in 1849...Poland...Sweden...Alexander I marched with
his troops all the way to Paris; not a particularly defensive action. The
Danubian Principalities (present day Romania) was attacked several times by
Russia...The list can be made longer.
Peter

At 02:49 PM 4/29/97 -0400, Eva Balogh wrote:
<snip>
>I have been tempted to write something about this but then inertia>set in. I am glad, Gabor, that you said something. I am especially>surprised about our "tolerant" Joe who seems to have a completely>blind spot when it comes to religion.
Religion is just so much piffle. I have no use for it. Mind you, I
believe in freedom of religion. I also believe I have a right to express
my thoughts on the topic. Religion and religious people do not agree with
me. Does that make me intolerant?
<snip>
>I visited Salt Lake City and I found the scene rather odd but I am>open-minded enough to admit that there are some people who are>attracted to the teachings of Joseph Smith.
And some people in Hungary are attracted to the teachings of Torgyan.
Nuttiness, whether political or religious, is fair game for criticism and
ridicule.
>Moreover, if their missionary work is successful: well, who am I to>criticize either them or their followers. ESB
Why don't you take such a laissez faire attitude towards Marx or Marxists,
or other political theorists and their followers? Is this a case of
applying a double standard just because one is an attitude toward religion
and the other is toward politics? Please keep in mind that some of the
nastiest conflicts in the world today are 'religion' based.
Joe Szalai